awesomelly - Tumblr blog

awesomelly · 2 months ago

Text

Ouchy that hit me like an arrow in the shoulder blade because it is so fucking true 😭 poor Hans. That's why I was always like "oh, hi Hans! 🌺🤩" in the first game whenever I saw him roaming around in Rattay because something inside me knew: that kid there - he isn't evil/bratty/a menace for the lolz like Matthew and Fritz from Skalitz but a truly lonely human, cornered and ignored. The second game doesn't change that per se but his character arc is so amazing and he's trying, my gosh he is trying so hard to connect, especially with Samuel as Henry's brother but doesn't want to fuck it up either. So he keeps to himself around him, too. While Henry is Hans's most important person, I think the connection with Godwin is an important step/lesson too because "heey, there is someone genuinely interested in me that could be my father?"so I'm sure that helps a great deal to form close and trusting relationships with other people after being ignored and forgotten for so long.

I want to talk about how alone Hans really is. Straight up, before Henry barged into the picture, I couldn't even imagine how Hans spent his time.

Now, this isn't to say Hans doesn't talk to people. He clearly does, when he wants to, but the circumstances really dictate when he does. If it's him just seeking out a bit of comfort, he'll go flirt with a bath maid or woman, drink with a few laborers, or argue with annoying peasants that disrespect him, but put his ass in a room full of his "betters", and he just crumbles like a pillar of sand.

It is obvious that Hanush doesn't engage with Hans too much, even though he is his guardian. We know the Rattay priest often teaches Hans things like literature and scripture, and I'm sure other tutors have taught him diplomacy, as he's very good at it. However, Hans severely lacks social education. He's awkward, says many inappropriate things without seeming to realize it's inappropriate, and has difficulty making friends.

In KCD, Hans wanders around Rattay alone. He sits alone, he reads alone, he leans up against buildings, and stares off into space alone. He's never seen drinking with anybody, he never converses with anybody, and he just feels so isolated from everything.

This doesn't change in KCD2 either, not really. Sure, Hans has Henry as a genuine friend now, someone who not only likes him for him but also treats him equally, protects him, and stands by him, even when he's being a massive prick. However, when Henry isn't available, what does Hans do? The same exact behaviours. He isolates himself. He doesn't talk to anyone, and the few conversations he does have are very short and curt. He wanders around, eats by himself, sits by himself, and stares off into space. This does not seem to be an NPC-specific schedule thing.

Sure, NPCS do similar activities, but Hans specifically has less dialogue triggered with the Devils Pack or any of the NPCs in Von Bergows' castle. If at all, honestly, I don't remember Hans speaking to anyone at all there. He also purposefully stands apart from them as well, removing himself to the furthest parts of the Den where literally no one else but Henry goes. 99% of the time, Hans is leaning against some pillar at the Den, just thinking, or maybe people watching? I've caught him once, halfheartedly flirting with a bathhouse maid in my entire 180-hour playthrough. Then he says he takes strolls in the woods often as well.

The man can't even enjoy parties. Sure, it seems he does, but watch him more closely and you'll see he just drinks himself stupid and still stands off somewhere by himself again. At the Semine Wedding, he did this until he managed to woo Enneleyn to a one-on-one. At Von Bergows' party, he just gives up and goes to bed early, and then at the rebellion meeting, he slumps in a chair next to the fireplace and stares at the flames. Then he drinks himself into a frenzy after the wedding announcement.

It's incredibly alarming how used to this he is. I'm certain it's not because he wants to be alone, considering how excited and attached to Henry he is. He's just always been so invisible to everyone else. Literally. It isn't just that Hans isn't engaging; no one tries to engage with him. I'm not saying they're required to, but Dry Devil and Zizka very clearly have had their opinions set on the poor man from the get-go, and everyone else just seems to follow in line.

One would assume Hans would try to make more friends while he's able to. These people don't really know him yet, they're not from Rattay where Hanush has made sure to sour his name, (He also pulls this same shit at the rebellions meeting too) Yet, nothing is that different is it? Zizka treats Hans like an expensive, fragile glass cup, and Dry Devil, if talking about Hans at all, just seems to view him as a troublesome child. Hans is used to this, so he falls into his habits, not even bothering to defend himself or try to change their minds.

It's heartbreaking. This is obviously a deep-rooted issue and ties back to Han's lack of self-esteem. Oh, he acts like he has an ego, but look closer at that birdie and you'll see an empty space where any self-worth is supposed to be. He just adapts and makes himself as small and out of the way as he can. Until he's with Henry again, where he's a little more open and active, in all the good and horrible, chaotic ways. Which is why his relationship with Henry means so much to him, and why it terrifies him to possibly lose it. Especially in his romance, where I believe we get to see Hans with all his walls down and the most exposed and vulnerable he's ever been.

#kingdom come deliverance #hans capon #hansry

422 notes · View notes

awesomelly · 2 months ago

Text

Sexuality, Acceptability, Risk, and Medieval Bohemia

Someone commented on my Hansry fic recently about how a good number of fics in this fandom apparently feature the sort of modern protestant homophobia emblematic of the United States. This was baffling to me.

More recently I've seen a bit of backlash against this rather normative, America-centric approach to the historical homophobia (deeply entrenched in Catholicism, mind you) that they would have been subject to back then. And, as is quite normal with the internet, naturally the pendulum has swung way too far in the other direction. Jokes were made and then taken seriously by others. I've now seen sentiments floating around like "oh they wouldn't have cared at all," (not on tumblr) which is wild to me.

My doctoral studies have to do with queerness in the High Middle Ages, so seeing as I've spent the last several years of my life living on archive.org, knee-deep in this research, I feel like it's my academic responsibility to correct the record some. As usual, the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes.

All my sources are listed in the text (in the case of art) or at the very end of the post. For those of you just interested in what all of this means for Hansry, feel free to jump down to the purple heading.

I will start by saying that the "queer medieval utopia" you're looking for didn't exist. The closest you're going to get to that is the late 11th century / early 12th century, and even then there were limits to this general social acceptability. Paris and Florence were commonly considered to be gay dens of iniquity by people outside of those places, but even that was a bit of an exaggeration.

So where does this misconception come from?

Within the Catholic landscape, the body was considered separate from the spirit. Only one's "mystic sensorium" was supposed to be involved in spiritual intercourse with Christ and each other, and the overlap of the real and the ideal was… problematic at times, a genuine threat to chastity. Physical affection was meant to not broach certain limits. Kissing was acceptable. Metaphors were acceptable. In ancient Christianity, it was normal for women to kiss other women and for men to kiss other men as part of mass in the name of exchanging the kiss of peace, the pax. The idea here was to meet with the Spirit of Christ. Ambrose likened it to "lovers who, unsatisfied with the mere enjoyment of the lips, kiss so deeply as to interchange their spirits with one another." Which is all well and good, but this leaves a lot of leeway. How much physical affection was considered acceptable?

Anselm, the closest thing we have to a gay man of this time, would write things like this, in this case a letter addressed to two biological brothers that he hoped to join him in the monastic life:

"My eyes long to see your faces most beloved; my arms stretch out to your embraces; my lips long for your kisses; whatever remains to me of life desires your company . . . . Oh, how my love burns in my marrow . . . . [In coming to Bec] you have fused my soul with yours. If you now leave me, our joint soul will be torn apart, it can never again become two."

He had never met them before, nor should this suggest that they were about to enter a sexual relationship. In fact, around this time we see quite a few such expressions of affection coming out of the monastic space. Alcuin, writing to Arno of Salzburg, felt entirely comfortable writing that his love could not be prevented, even in the face of death, from licking Arno's innermost parts, a reference here (most likely) to Christ's side wound. In another letter, Alcuin is even more overt:

"It is exquisitely sweet to remember your love and intimacy, holy father; I wish the dear moment would come when I might embrace the shoulders of your love with the arms of my longing for you. . . . with what speedy hands I would rush into your fatherly embrace, with what pressing lips I would kiss not only your eyes and ears and mouth, but each knuckle of each finger, of each toe, not once, but many, many times!"

It would be extremely easy to assume that these letters suggested more than meets the eye, but historically speaking, as far as we know, this was not the case. Because this level of affection was considered to be in line with the "Christian" thing to do between brothers (no, I'm not joking). And there were harsh punishments if you breached these limits. Bear in mind, these letters could easily be seen by others!

Moreover, it should be noted that we don't see this level of affection outside of the monastic space (though it does still come up, albeit to a much lesser extent). You can think of it as code switching, essentially. Verbiage that would be considered insanely sexual in one space would not be considered as such within a monastic context prior to the shift in the 12th century.

Some scholars suggested that the use of such language implies ignorance or naivety about how this physical affection could look to the outside world, but we do know that Anselm at one point became worried enough that he might be misunderstood that he censored himself after leaving Bec for Canterbury. Even if his inclinations were chaste, he knew they could be viewed through the lens of homosexuality.

The ideal sexual state for a person to be in at this time was rooted in asceticism: chastity in the face of desire. You'd think asexuality would be a quick workaround for that, but unfortunately the lack of desire would just mean a lack of necessary effort on that person's part. Bear in mind, suffering is what's rewarded here. A gay man plagued with homosexual desires is just being tested by God. By denying himself those desires, he's rising in the ranks of holiness. A great example of this is Brother Lucas from KCD1:

According to the Rule of Pachomius, kissing boys on the lips was forbidden and punished by whipping, imprisonment, fasting, shaving, and six months of humiliation. In Fructuosus of Braga's Rule, a monk kissing or even being "too attentive to young men or boys would result in a very similar six month sentence as well as six additional months of manual labor, separated from his brethren, always under watch of at least two spiritual brothers. Never again was he allowed to enjoy private conversation or companionship with those younger than him.

"But Tam!" you might say. "This is just about monks! What about real people?"

I'm so glad you asked! Because we know that as well!

Penitentials, which were quite in vogue until around the 11th century and then again after the passing of Lateran IV in the early 13th century, were very punishing of all manner of sexuality, but especially homosexual acts, and, among them, especially oral sex. (The mouth is considered, to a certain extent, sacred. Don't ask me why, that alone is like twenty pages in my dissertation, though I could be lowballing tbh.) The Penitential of Theodore punishes it with 7 years of harsh penance and 15 years if the practice is habitual. Sometimes, however, it was "until the end of life" and considered to be the "worst evil," worse than fornication with one's mother. Harsh!

Ye olde penitentials were used as guidelines for later confession as well as those from before the 12th century. Conveniently for us, the late, great James A. Brundage came up with a fantastic chart/guide on when and how it was acceptable to have sex at all:

Did people follow this? My god, absolutely not. We wouldn't have the confessional records if this wasn't a problem in the realm of ~sin. But the guidelines were there and expected to be adhered to.

Don't get me wrong, the late 11th / early 12th century was a watershed moment in history in terms of overall acceptability of queerness, a time when Ovid and other Ovidian literature flourished. Punishments were rarely enforced. But the come-down from that era led us to a very rough landing. Lateran III kicked off the official canon ratification of outlawing homosexuality explicitly, and this, together with the outlawing of clerical marriage and the sudden flourishing of courtly love as a genre, led to a very dramatic shift in society from homosocial to heterosexual (which is, incidentally, what my dissertation is about).

The long 12th century was a red letter event in terms of history, not least because some of history's most notorious homophobes spread their ideas like wildfire. I am, of course, talking about Alain de Lille, renowned author of De planctu Naturae ("The Complaint of Nature"), which reminded everyone that homosexuality was against nature, and Peter Damian, who doesn't even deserve being commented on. The idea of homosexuality being "against nature" was far from new. The early church fathers like Augustine and Jerome condemned it pretty outrightly, and in the 13th century St. Thomas Aquinas was more than happy to further entrench the idea. Here, sodomy disrupts nature so much as to dissolve the soul.

We saw this in literature as well. Dante's Divine Comedy (early 14th c) slapped sodomites into the 7th layer of hell, but a real standout here is the Debate Between Ganymede and Helen, where the two have a very lengthy argument wherein she convinces Ganymede (often associated with homosexuality) that heterosexuality is infinitely superior to the alternative. She throws in such lovely arguments as insisting that he at least respect Nature, that he's been deceived by well-disguised filth, that he's been squandering his love between the thighs of men, and that he's been treating himself like human garbage as a result. In the end, he suddenly sees his crime for what it is, and the gods agree with him, stating that they've now also come to their senses. Sodomy is thus left behind by the gods and the choir swells in cheer at this tremendous success.

Canon law more or less exclusively had its grubby little fingers in the pies of what was and wasn't deemed acceptable in terms of sex until about the early-14th c, while afterward the government was delighted to also get involved in your bedroom activities. Particularly in the late 14th century homosexuality was increasingly legislated against, and in increasingly brutal ways at that. This wonderful and not at all problematic marriage of church and state is how we ended up with the Trials of the Knights Templar.

Let's say you're King Philip IV. The people have been revolting, you're running low on funds, you owe the Templars as it is, and you have a penchant for pogroms. You want money and land. What do you do? Well, naturally you write a letter to the pope about how you have all these horrible suspicions about these people you employ and who have come to your aid quite often!

Boy, oh boy! Wasn't that a fun time for them. Before, they'd been well-respected and well-off, supported by the king, with zero doubt in their respectability. Naturally, it all came tumbling down with that letter. Because the investigation was ready to find them at fault for something no matter what, under pain of torture of course. There's a particularly striking letter from a father to his daughter, written during the Bamberg witch trials (much later), wherein he explained that, after a particularly rough torture session, the executioner pulled him aside and told him this: "Sir, I beg you, for God's sake confess something, whether it be true or not. Invent something, for you cannot endure the torture which you will be put to; and, even if you bear it all, yet you will not escape, not even if you were an earl, but one torture will follow after another until you say you are a witch. Not before that will they let you go, as you may see by all their trials, for one is just like another."

Were the Templars recreationally homosexual? Maybe. For their sake, I sure hope so, because then they might have at least had some fun before going out. But either way, they were arrested, their territory, funds, and belongings seized, were convicted of heresy, sodomy, and black magic, and eventually burned at the stake. Two men were later burned at the stake as relapsed heretics after saying that they'd only confessed under duress and were actually innocent.

It even led to fun art like this one in 1350:

De Longuyon, Jacques. Voeux du Paon Manuscript. 1350. Morgan Library and Museum, New York. G.24 fol. 70r.

It was also around this time also that homosexuality was increasingly associated not only with heresy, but also with bestiality, suggesting that this crime against nature was effectively also a crossing of special boundaries (species-based, not extraordinary). In line with this, while homage to one's liege used to be sworn with a kiss on the lips (!!), over the course of the 14th century that was summarily done away with as well in a change that quite frankly swept across Europe (and we all wept).

In 1327, Edward II, who had a few boyfriends, was supposedly murdered by having a red hot poker shoved up his rectum. Even if this didn't happen, the chroniclers wanted us to believe it, and knowing what we do about Edward's sexual proclivities, it seems like this was a Statement if nothing else.

Where Bologna used to punish homosexuality with a fine, after the late 13th century the punishment was death by burning. The Portuguese, meanwhile, castrated convicted homosexuals and then, three days later, had them hanged by the feet until dead. In Siena, death by hanging was also the answer, but in this case, it was hanging by the dick until dead (not kidding). A particularly horrifying case was this one, happening just six years after when KCD canon takes place:

Which reminds us that this was most likely an issue that very much associated the clergy (known to be corrupt, especially around this time!). You'll recall the little comments made about this in the game, like Godwin casually committing heresy in front of the whole crew. "Do you think you need a priest for God to hear you?" Well geez, Godwin, according to the Catholic Church, you sure as shit fucking do! What a fantastic and not at all risky thing to say!

(Sidenote, this one is particularly upsetting to me personally in a fandom context because, not only is Augsburg not far from Bohemia, it really reminds me of the many associations between Hans and a caged bird.)

All of which isn't to say that sodomy didn't take place. Boy did it fucking ever. A great example of this comes from out of Switzerland, where, in 1475, a priest reportedly told his lover that "if everybody who committed [the act of sodomy] was burnt at the stake, not even fifty men would survive in Basel." ("Vnd solt man alle die so das tuend verbrennen, es bliben nit funffzig mannen jn Basel.") So, 1% of Basel. This is almost certainly a massive fucking exaggeration that this man pulled out of his ass in order to convince his partner that sodomy is fine, actually, but it does tell us something about the perception, if not the actual prevalence of sodomy in urban centers. (So, you know, if anyone needs to justify that Jadder have fucked at least once, if not more… when in Kuttenberg...)

It should be noted that Basel was very lax in terms of punishing homosexuality, but that was by and large not the most common outcome, as homosexuality was generally associated with divine punishment (I'm sure you've heard that drivel yourself before even in the modern day). Hilariously, it was the generally held belief that if someone learned of "the vice against nature" they'd naturally want to do it, and so priests were advised never to talk about it, even to preach.

So then, what does this mean for Hansry and co?

It means that this was at worst very much a fucking crime that you could very much be convicted for, in brutal fucking fashion at times, and at best the quiet part that you don't say out loud. But even then, it was fucking risky. Riskier if you're a member of the clergy (do recall how worried Brother Lucas was about his secret getting out, despite having never committed the sin himself), but risky even if you're not. All you have to do to see this reflected in canon is to look at Barnaby, the herbalist/hermit. As he explained it, he turned down a girl, she complained to her brother, and "he put two and two together":

Remember how I said that homosexuality was increasingly associated with bestiality? I find Barnaby's word choice fascinating here. Animals like him.

Of course, he beat them up and thus... uh, was able to survive:

Not that it didn't massively affect his quality of life. There's a reason he's a hermit! After all, he was unwelcome no matter where he went, no doubt because the brother and his friends ensured that this knowledge spread:

You might say, oh, it's different among the nobility! And to a certain extent, you're correct. Talking to the scribe in Troskowitz, he at one point gets to a part in the story about George the Lion of Wartenberg where he says this:

And then later, at the banquet where Hans loses his mind from jealousy, it comes up quite a lot in the conversation with Black Bartosch. First, he brings up Florian of Lomnitz:

And then, of course, we get the legendary conversation that follows, where the comment about Florian's sexuality makes Henry question Bartosch about his own:

It's soooo subtle. So, so easy to turn to plausible deniability. If anyone questions it, you can easily argue that your intentions were entirely chaste. And Henry can ignore it or even outright respond with a claim of heterosexuality:

But he can't question it like he can with the scribe:

Where the scribe then brushes it off as nothing and refuses to elaborate:

Even here this is a case of IYKTYK, like homosexuality is a club and in order to enter you have to know what's up. Because if you don't know and have to be informed, that presents a risk, namely that of suspicion being cast on you. Why do you know this information? What were you doing at this sodomitical devil's sacrament?

Honestly, at least among the nobility I'd liken it a bit to prohibition, but on a much less... widespread level. Oh, and literally everyone and anyone could be a cop. You could get away with it until you were caught. The risk was just a lot more pronounced. Even with Edward II the consequence of the very accurate rumors surrounding his sex life was public denunciation and possibly a poker up his ass. And if you're a noble involved with a commoner, multiply the risk exponentially, which is unfortunately relevant for both Hansry and Jamuel. If it really was as casually acceptable as some people claim it to have been (again, not on tumblr, I'm not here to stir up drama), I think Henry wouldn't have necessarily pushed Hans away, nor do I think they would have been as careful in their end-game conversation about what they do and don't say.

If anyone has any questions on this, tangentially-related topics, my sources, or literally anything else, by all means feel free to ask. I have the resources at my fingertips and the research very much at the forefront of my mind and will for the foreseeable future. On request, I've also added a list of further reading after my list of sources if anyone is curious to learn more of this for themselves.

Sources used:

Abraham, Erin V. Anticipating Sin in Medieval Society: Childhood, Sexuality, and Violence in the Early Penitentials, Amsterdam University Press, 2021

Anselm. The Letters of Saint Anselm of Canterbury. Translated by Walter Fröhlich, Cistercian Publications, 1990.

Brundage, James A. Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe. University of Chicago Press, 1987.

Dronke, Peter. Medieval Latin and the Rise of the European Love-Lyric, Vol. 1, Oxford University Press, 1965.

Major, J. Russell. “‘Bastard Feudalism’ and the Kiss: Changing Social Mores in Late Medieval and Early Modern France.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 17, no. 3, 1987, pp. 509–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/204609.

Mills, Robert. Seeing Sodomy in the Middle Ages. University of Chicago Press, 2015

Moore, R. I. The War on Heresy: Faith and Power in Medieval Europe. Profile Books, 2014.

Murray, Jacqueline, and Konrad Eisenbichler, editors. Desire and Discipline: Sex and Sexuality in the Premodern West. University of Toronto Press, 1996.

Perella, Nicolas J. The Kiss Sacred and Profane: An Interpretative History of Kiss Symbolism and Related Religio-Erotic Themes. University of California Press, 1969.

Puff, Helmut. “Localizing Sodomy: The ‘Priest and Sodomite’ in Pre-Reformation Germany and Switzerland.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 8, no. 2, 1997, pp. 165–95. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3704215.

Puff, Helmut. Lust, Angst Und Provokation: Homosexualität in Der Gesellschaft. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.

Southern, R.W., Saint Anselm: A Portrait in a Landscape, Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Stehling, Thomas. Medieval Latin Poems of Male Love and Friendship. Garland Pub, 1984.

Recommended further reading:

Bailey, Derrick Sherwin. Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition. Archon Books, 1975. Originally published by Longmans, Green & Co., 1955.

Barbezat, Michael D. “Bodies of Spirit and Bodies of Flesh: The Significance of the Sexual Practices Attributed to Heretics from the Eleventh to the Fourteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Sexuality, vol. 25, no. 3, 2016, pp. 387–419. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44862359.

Brundage, James A. "Playing by the Rules: Sexual Behaviour and Legal Norms in Medieval Europe". Desire and Discipline: Sex and Sexuality in the Premodern West, edited by Konrad Eisenbichler and Jacqueline Murray, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442673854-004

Bullough, Vern L. “Heresy, Witchcraft, and Sexuality.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 1, no. 2, 3 Mar. 1976, pp. 183–199, https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v01n02_03.

---. “The Sin against Nature and Homosexuality.” Sexual Practices & the Medieval Church, edited by Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1994, pp. 55–71.

Bullough, Vern L., and James A. Brundage, editors. Handbook of Medieval Sexuality. Garland Publishing, 1996.

---, editors. Sexual Practices & the Medieval Church. Prometheus Books, 1994.

Burger, Glenn, and Steven F. Kruger, editors. Queering the Middle Ages. NED-New edition, vol. 27, University of Minnesota Press, 2001. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctttszw5.

Clark, David. Between Medieval Men: Male Friendship and Desire in Early Medieval English Literature . Oxford University Press, 2009.

Dinshaw, Carolyn. Getting Medieval: Sexualities and Communities, Pre- and Postmodern. Duke University Press, 1999.

Fradenburg Louise, et al., editors. Premodern Sexualities. Routledge, 1995.

Frassetto, Michael. Heresy and the Persecuting Society in the Middle Ages: Essays on the Work of R.I. Moore. Brill, 2006.

Gilbert, Arthur N. “Conceptions of Homosexuality and Sodomy in Western History.” The Gay Past: A Collection of Historical Essays, edited by Salvatore J. Licata and Robert P. Petersen, Harrington Press, New York, NY, 1985, pp. 57–68.

Goodich, Michael. “Sodomy in Ecclesiastical Law and Theory.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 1, no. 4, 20 June 1976, pp. 427–434, https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v01n04_06.

---. “Sodomy in Medieval Secular Law.” Journal of Homosexuality, vol. 1, no. 3, 20 June 1976, pp. 295–302, https://doi.org/10.1300/j082v01n03_04.

---. The Unmentionable Vice Homosexuality in the Later Medieval Period. Ross-Erikson, 1979.

Jordan, Mark D. The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology. University of Chicago Press, 1997.

Karras, Ruth Mazo. “Attitudes to Same-Sex Sexual Relations in the Latin World.” A Companion to Crime and Deviance in the Middle Ages, edited by Hannah Skoda, Arc Humanities Press, 2023, pp. 84–101. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/jj.3716022.9.

---. From Boys to Men: Formations of Masculinity in Late Medieval Europe. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003.

---. “The Regulation of ‘Sodomy’ in the Latin East and West.” Speculum, vol. 95, no. 4, 1 Oct. 2020, pp. 969–986, https://doi.org/10.1086/710639.

---. Sexuality in Medieval Europe: Doing unto Others. Routledge, 2012.

Kruger, Steven F. “Queer Middle Ages.” The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Theory, 1st ed., Routledge, New York, NY, 2009, pp. 413–434.

Kuefler, Mathew, editor. The Boswell Thesis: Essays on Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press, 2006.

Lees, Clare A., et al. Medieval Masculinities: Regarding Men in the Middle Ages. University of Minnesota Press, 1994.

Pierce, Rosamond. “The ‘Frankish’ Penitentials.” Studies in Church History, vol. 11, 1975, pp. 31–39, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0424208400006276.

***Please note: my omission of Boswell's CSTH here is entirely intentional. I know that if people here got a hold of him he'd be considered a tumblr darling, easy. If I could, I would wear merch with his name on it. And normally I would list him loudly and proudly. But I'm not, because the man loved reading into things that at times aren't there, and there are countless critiques that have been leveled against CSTH, many of which Boswell himself agreed with. So. If the general tumblr population wasn't constantly pissing on the poor I might trust it in their hands, but as it is, I know that nuance is lost on people!

(would you believe me if I said I tried to restrain myself in curating this list? no?? well I DID)

1K notes · View notes

awesomelly · 2 months ago

Text

it’ll forever be hilarious to me how wenchless hans is. he’s a young, conventionally attractive nobleman who spends a pretty decent amount of his time trying to pursue women in an admittedly insufferable way but even though he has money and status and could give any woman a more than comfortable life, despite whether they love each other or not, who’s the one getting all the wenches?

his peasant squire, henry. the one person on the entire planet who can’t shut up about hans, turns every conversation with others into something about hans, writes in his diary about “irresistible” hans, literally responds to women flirting with him by bringing up how dedicated he is to hans. and those same women are throwing themselves at him like darts.

there’s just something so deeply funny and pathetic about hans actively and persistently trying so hard to impress women while they all flock to his #1 fanboy, henry of skalitz, who’s practically writing gay fan fiction about himself and hans in his journal.

464 notes · View notes

awesomelly · 2 months ago

Text

This.

kcd2 is great but if you understand kcd as the story of Henry & Hans you really gotta play kcd1. Trust me on this one.

in kcd2 we enter with and maintain a pretty consistent note of "yeah that's my bestie sir hans, he's annoying af and never shuts up but ohana means family and i love the little shit." Sure, you get to determine the specific tenor and style of Henry's love, but he's your shit and you love him the most regardless.

Meanwhile KCD1 takes the player (in lock step with Henry) on a fucking superb emotional journey from:

"I HATE HIM. I HATE HIM I HATE HIM, I WISH HIM NOTHING BUT DEATH AND PAIN AND GENITAL WARTS, PEOPLE LIKE HIM ARE A BLIGHT UPON THIS EARTH, MAY HIS BUSH FALL OUT AND HIS DICK FALL OFF"

"okay so he's funny whatever i don't really care"

to ending the game like

"Where is he?? my brethren, my sweet cheese, my rotten soldier, light of my life, HAAANS WHERE ARE YOU--oh thank fuck there he is. Yes please do speak your mind my vile prince, everything you say is delightful, I'm going to fucking kill you hans capon, let it be known that if this world harms one blond hair on his head I am going to explode the vatican"

And if you don't go through that journey with Henry then KCD2 just cannot hit the same way!!!

#hansry

758 notes · View notes

awesomelly · 2 months ago

Text

https://archiveofourown.org/works/62776435

Thanks to @guchaigue for bringing a new dimension of vitality to this fic!

Had the honor to draw for Lemmynate’s Mshenko fanfictions, check them out on AO3 for incredible writing!

#mass effect #mshenko #kaidan alenko #john shepard

664 notes · View notes

awesomelly · 2 months ago

Text

Ah yes, reaching a new level while reading Capon's erotic verses. Classic Henry. Thank you Warhorse for Hansry and my current hyperfixation.

#hansry #kingdom come deliverance

133 notes · View notes

awesomelly · 3 months ago

Text

Hey, hansry fandom. Let me attempt to upsell some of you creators on alternative ways gay couples explore physical intimacy, then some reasons why anal penetration might not be the end-all, be-all form of lovemaking to incorporate into a NSFW scenario.

To start. Frotting (+frottage) is rubbing cocks, or a cock against a different part of their partner’s of the body, for stimulation. This is the go-to technique for many gays who find the experience to be more emotional and less uncomfortable or tedious than penetrative sex. In terms of lovemaking, it’s extremely versatile: it can be slow and intimate, rushed and desperate, or rough and carnal. For example, for two new lovers who have recently connected due to their close bond and not necessarily physical attraction, frotting allows for face-to-face positioning. This enables eye contact and kissing to help incite the arousal that stems from their emotional connection. Conversely, suppose you’re writing a scene of a noble and a commoner who are just frantic with raw need for each other during their honeymoon phase, or are ducking into a room in a quiet part of a castle but have to be quick about it. In that case, bending a lover over a table and rutting over his hole from behind can bring pleasure to both without the preparation or pain that comes with fucking. The anus itself is pretty sensitive, and even if a guy doesn't like getting mounted, the friction over his hole can feel good. Frotting can also be used to show appreciation for other parts of the body one’s partner finds alluring: chest, hips, face, ass, and abdominal frottage are common choices. Intercrural sex is a term for frottage that typically means between the thighs specifically. Frotting, like most forms of intercourse, benefits from lubrication so the pressure and friction can be better enjoyed, but isn’t always needed.

Handjobs can serve in almost every scenario, from casual encounters to impassioned lovemaking. The hand is an incredibly sensitive and adept tool for feeling - and delivering - physical responses in the body of another. Hands also have a lot of character that can convey the essence of the person. The rough callouses and burn scars earned throughout a youth spent working with the blistering heat of a forge and dangerous tools of the blacksmith’s trade are going to result in a very different touch than that which comes from a pair of hands that had proper leather gloves for protection as a young knight drilled in the art of combat and bowmanship. Palms sliding over skin to explore the planes of the body, following the curves and flexing of worked muscles, and curious fingers carding through a lover’s hair to trace nails over the sensitive scalp, or invade a private, personal space that a man’s lover will only allow him to experience are just some of the romantic expressions that can occur before even touching his dick. If the couple is very sexually active - say, perhaps needing to accommodate an exceptionally horny lordling - handies can be a solution for multiple encounters in a day, or if the time/place isn’t convenient for something more involved.

(And this is where we remember that, as Christians living in medieval Bohemia, Hans and Henry almost certainly wouldn’t have been circumcised. For some reason, North American-based fandom gets really weird about foreskin?? Anyway.)

Mutual masturbation is infrequently seen in fanworks because it’s misunderstood as not being as romantic or involved as physical touch between partners. Not so. In this scenario, the lovers stimulate themselves in tandem with each other. This approach definitely has its appeals and uses since it allows men to have greater control over their own sexual experience. It’s helpful if one or both partners are anxious or unsure about how to touch another man and need to “ease into things”. There are many anecdotes of men discovering their same-sex attraction by watching them masturbate, then taking the next step of gratifying themselves in proximity to other men to develop their understanding of their orientation. So, for two knights raised in a deeply religious culture that is hostile towards homosexuality to the point of execution and condemning the eternal soul over it, masturbating in the presence of one another could be a middle ground they use while overcoming their learned fear of that social violation. Masturbating in the presence of a lover can also be a pragmatic solution if a partner is oversensitive or easily overstimulated. Some guys’ dicks demand a very delicate or particular touch or they go soft fast (sidenote: this also applies to the balls, to the point where being touched there can kill the man’s arousal outright). By masturbating, a man can control how he’s touched to keep it enjoyable or prevent himself from finishing too quickly. The arousal can be shared with a partner who becomes turned on by watching his lover in pleasure just from thinking about him, and in turn, he can offer words and moans of love/lust to tip the other over.

Oral. Obviously. I won’t go into the merits of oral pleasure since fandom is well acquainted with the practice and concept, and it’s almost core to the gay experience. It's a labor of love, and it requires skill. That makes it a very attractive option if the goal is to spoil a partner and focus on his pleasure. Still, not everyone enjoys giving or receiving oral sex, and the fact is that sometimes couples aren’t physically suited for it. The recipient might have a hard time being stimulated enough to orgasm to oral even with a partner who’s really good at it, or a cock may be too big for a man to successfully suck off, or he has to use his hand too. Oral can be a concluding act, or it can be foreplay before finishing up by another means. In terms of delivery, it’s a method that doesn’t require much prep since saliva provides the lubrication and the tongue does the work. The musky scent of a man’s lover that is its most powerful beneath the hips can be attractive to him. That said, nobody cares to suck on an unwashed dick that’s been in the same pair of brais for the past week. For plots about two young bucks using an extended hunting trip as an excuse to get away from prying eyes for a while, some consideration should be made if they've been out in the woods for a few days.

So that brings us to the object of fandom’s fixation, which is good ol’ fashioned sodomy. And I’m not against depicting the act of men fucking, far from it. Big fan, actually. But fandom usually gets it wrong. Thanks to porn and raunchy TV, fucking guys got the same treatment as fucking women where there’s this collective misconception that if done “right”, all that’s needed is for the receiving partner to get plowed stupid, and then both will cum in unison in this blissful magical moment of physical and emotional harmony. It’s bullshit.

Just like women often can’t get off from being split by dick alone (and the urban myth implying that’s what happens for everyone having caused multitudes to feel shame or embarrassment for not being able to get off from unreciprocating partners), guys often don’t either. Women usually need their clit stimulated; guys often need more, too. For male or female bottoms, the same issues arise. A man’s lover might have a dick that’s too big and causes him pain. Look, smut writers, often there’s just no amount of lube or stretching prep or quiet murmurs of “Breathe. Relax, my love~” that will make a cock fit comfortably in a hole. And though it’s nothing to be ashamed about, sometimes the inserted cock is too short or narrow for a man to physically arouse his partner from penetration alone. Fact of life. There’s yet another component to male anatomy: dick shape and bend. The man’s prostate is located to the fore of his rectum. It’s the pressure and motion against the prostate that causes stimulation; if his partner’s dick is curved (which they often are, not everyone has perfectly shaped, big cocks), it may be in such a way that certain positions are more pleasurable to the recipient than others. Due to the downward bend of his partner’s a cock, a bottom might get stars behind his eyes for being railed from behind, but almost nothing from a missionary pose.

A commonly cited reason why gay men don’t care for or refuse to engage in anal isn’t because it causes pain, but because the motion of a mass passing through the rectum is biologically associated with taking a shit. The sensation of something moving in the ass is understandably awkward and unsexy to a lot of guys because it feels foremost like dropping a log, and any stimulation they might get from the dicking down isn’t worth the discomfort. Meanwhile, because the prostate isn’t some guaranteed g-spot button you just have to hit for perfect results, other dudes physically get nothing from the experience at all. Even a great fucking may just go nowhere for him. Now, there are plenty of dudes in this category who will still bottom for their partner regardless. The experience and feeling of his lover getting off to and inside of him can be a big turn-on, even if it’s not physically exciting for the bottom. So, he might spread cheeks for his lover as a service, then get finished off in a different way afterward. Or they may swap, and he fucks his partner back. Even if the bottom does find being fucked enjoyable, again, it’s very common that they don’t finish at the same time. A top may have to keep banging a fucked-out partner for a while after, or a bottom may need some extra attention to wrap up. Even so, it doesn’t make the lovemaking less special either way.

Finally, yes, anal requires some prep unless you're willing to gamble on 1) mild to severe rectal trauma and bleeding, and 2) actually shitting on your partner. Not a deal-killer for all couples who may be caught up in the thrill of the moment, hey, but generally speaking, most gays take precautions to minimize the likelihood of both. And bless, while there are some bottoms out there who can rawdog a freaking horse on nothing more than a hocked loogie for lube and Hail Mary, for most there’s a mental checklist for taking cock starting with whether or not he needs to go take a dump to clean himself out. This would then be followed by outward cleanliness (no bidets or toilet paper in 1302 Bohemia, remember), followed by lubrication, followed by insertion and repositioning. The idea of power bottom climbing astride his man to sit on his dick in one easy motion and ride him off into the sunset is a lot tougher to pull off in practice than it is in theory. And cocks slipping out of holes during the frantic breeding like rabbits, breaking the momentum and causing either amused chuckles or frustrated grunts? More common than anyone wants to admit. And the cum that goes in has to come out sooner or later. A big load will gradually leak out, and the feeling of anal seepage throughout the day isn’t on everybody’s kink list. Pulling out to finish spares a mess and discomfort.

Fucking can be hot, but there’s also an overprioritization on it fandom spaces as the most intimate form of sexual expression between a couple of men. There are so many ways for two guys to be physically romantic and fun and sexy with each other that aren’t somehow less meaningful or “real” than anal. And if it has to be anal or nothing, okay! Godspeed, but please let go of this idea that it’s only worthwhile if it’s by-the-book and adheres to the notion that lovers should neatly finish in perfect time and then be done with each other; that neither man should need to ever trouble their partner for a little extra care or attention to fulfill his needs, like not blowing on queue means somebody screwed it up. Sex and love should be a shared experience, not a formulaic and identical one.

269 notes · View notes